Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Tell me what it would mean if they couldn't be different.
Tell me what it would mean if they could.
But others have evidence and have appraised the evidence and are right to say there is evidence that God exists.Having appraised the evidence I am right to say that there is no evidence that Gods exist, I'm glad we cleared that up.
I'm done because this is nothing but an exercise in futility, it's like arguing with someone who swears they are Napoleon.
We don't need to know the origin to understand what gravity does and what would happen if it wasn't what it is.
Oh, of course....they are just speculating not asserting. How is this entirely different?
How many times in a scientific study do we bring in the possibility of unknowns as stopping our conclusions?
We can not know if there are other universes. So how are other universes any better in explanation than God?
Also, how do other universes eliminate fine tuning?
But scientists have shown the values are improbable.
Scientists sharing their opinions is not the same as scientists demonstrating things.There are books written about how improbable scientist find the universe having the values we have.
If this issue was refuted, then present it.
It does show signs of design, that is why the term fine tuning was chosen for the label of the phenomena. It appears that the 30 parameters that must be precisely what they are were set to be that way.
See above.
I have provided two arguments using scientist's arguments. The first is for the fine tuning of the universe. The consensus is that fine tuning is real. I argued with quotes from Einstein to counter your remark that he was an atheist. So what exactly have I cherry picked other than what I just retracted.
If the values couldn't have been different that makes the design even more convincing. If the universe could not have been different it would be even more fine tuned.
So? What if there were infinite mounts of universe with the same or different values? How would that eliminate the fine tuning?
1. Makes it more fine tuned.
2. No scientist believes the parameters happened by sheer coincidence.
3. There is no reason why this configuration is more likely then others we don't have others to show that.
First of all, I have said very little about a fine tuner so claiming I've gone on and on is a straw man.
Secondly, my "religion" doesn't require anything but to accept Jesus Christ as my Savior.
Lastly, it is because of evidence that is the whole point and the fact that you deny any evidence supporting a fine tuner out right shows your anti-religious dogma very clearly.
Right, one explanation...one God vs. infinite universes. I think the one God fits best with Occam's razor.
I would agree that it is most likely a human did it, it may have been a cat or a dog if one is in the house. But that is a reasonable assumption.
If you went to the beach and found pebbles in small piles spelling out "peace on earth" would you think that they just happened there by chance or would you assume some intelligent being spelled it out?
How is it a fallacious argument?
Why do you feel they are free from bias when they have made it very clear they are atheists? Do you believe that they would not want to have science eliminate God from being an option?
No, you haven't explained why I'm wrong. You have asserted I'm wrong.
It's called flogging a dead horse, all you will succeed in doing is making yourself tired.I've made post after post, using analogy after analogy to show and explain to you where you are wrong in your reasoning. Everybody can read it.
For it to be possible for life to occur by chance you need a very old universe (to that there is lots of time for opportunities for life), you need a massive universe to contain many galaxies (again for more chances, as well as to mitigate the attrition as galaxies swallow each other) you need a dynamic universe where supernovae happen to create various elements etc. None of those are a requirement for God. Saying the universe looks designed is like saying it is an immense Rube Goldberg machine that ends in human life. The universe we observe is the only kind that makes life by chance possible and is therfore uniquely unsuited to providing evidence that a god did it.How does the universe create life by chance? Please provide the evidence that shows this is the kind of universe that creates life by chance.
denying that the universe appears designed is dependant on what criteria you include for design. You want to say that it's immense complexity makes it look designed. I think it's complexity makes it look like the product of chance.IF the universe didn't looked designed this conversation would not be happening. In fact, if the universe didn't look designed the label of fine tuning would not have been chosen for the phenomena. Scientists would not have to ponder why the universe appears designed. So to claim the universe doesn't appear designed is based not on the actual way the universe appears but denying that it appears that way.
You are begging the question. Not only that you are asserting that God wouldn't create the universe the way it is created. You are asserting without evidence that life could come about by chance.For it to be possible for life to occur by chance you need a very old universe (to that there is lots of time for opportunities for life), you need a massive universe to contain many galaxies (again for more chances, as well as to mitigate the attrition as galaxies swallow each other) you need a dynamic universe where supernovae happen to create various elements etc. None of those are a requirement for God. Saying the universe looks designed is like saying it is an immense Rube Goldberg machine that ends in human life. The universe we observe is the only kind that makes life by chance possible and is therfore uniquely unsuited to providing evidence that a god did it.
Ok fair enough, explain how order and natural laws come from chance.denying that the universe appears designed is dependant on what criteria you include for design. You want to say that it's immense complexity makes it look designed. I think it's complexity makes it look like the product of chance.
I don't see how. I am not asserting that it did happen by chance, only that the universe that we observe is the kind of universe needed for it to happen by chance.You are begging the question
This is true to an extent. I am not saying that God couldn't create it this way or that there is something about the incredibly vague god concept that would prohibit it being created this way. Just that in my opinion if the intent was to have this universe be a sign pointing to him, then it doesn't work as well as other possible universes.Not only that you are asserting that God wouldn't create the universe the way it is created
Miller-Urey comes to mind. It doesn't demonstrate how life on earth began but does show proof of concept.You are asserting without evidence that life could come about by chance.
Is this a trick question....natural laws come from chance by.....chance.Ok fair enough, explain how order and natural laws come from chance.
It's called flogging a dead horse, all you will succeed in doing is making yourself tired.
Keep in mind that she is arguing from an unfalsifiable position. There isn't anything that will show her to be wrong.
What haven't I been able to substantiate?
Too bad no one pointed out that apologetics based on fine tuning are just an argument from ignorance. If only someone jumped in at, say, post 6 for example this whole thread would have been avoided.And neither is there any reason to think they could. The point exactly.
It is unknown.
You are asserting that life could happen by chance, which couldn't happen if not for the precise values we are discussing.I don't see how. I am not asserting that it did happen by chance, only that the universe that we observe is the kind of universe needed for it to happen by chance.
Again, it is if God wanted to have a choice of what to believe. If God put us on a planet without any other explanation it isn't a choice it is necessary to believe in Him.This is true to an extent. I am not saying that God couldn't create it this way or that there is something about the incredibly vague god concept that would prohibit it being created this way. Just that in my opinion if the intent was to have this universe be a sign pointing to him, then it doesn't work as well as other possible universes.
Which would be futile if not for the fine tuning concerning the life permitting values of the universe. Without the order and the chemistry being what it is there would not be life at all, and of course the majority of scientists don't believe it could have happened like this by chance.Miller-Urey comes to mind. It doesn't demonstrate how life on earth began but does show proof of concept.
You are claiming that not only are the values of precisely set parameters of 30 related and independent values and the laws of physics all just "look" like they are all just by chance?Is this a trick question....natural laws come from chance by.....chance.
If the values couldn't have been different that makes the design even more convincing.
No this was a response to you asking for MY WORK.
The majority of scientists are not as gullible as you are I guess. I've provided comments by the top scientists in the field that claim it is highly unlikely for the universe to be like this just by chance. I gave you equations by Roger Penrose. I gave you a link where Luke Barnes has his calculations http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.4647. You are ignoring what I've given you and then make accusations that I am not giving you what you ask for.Your claim that the particular set of constants this universe ended up with is an unlikely outcome. I've asked repeatedly for you to provide the odds that our universe ended up like it did. Are you not reading my posts before replying?
You are begging the question. Not only that you are asserting that God wouldn't create the universe the way it is created.
You misunderstand how people know God exists. I don't know that God exists because of the fine tuning, I know God exists and the fine tuning is more confirmation.You know god exists because it is incredibly unlikely the universe could have been formed this way without a god. And if we learn it was inevitable that the universe could have been formed this way without a god, that's even more evidence that god must exist? Come on, pick one side or the other.
This is why this whole approach is totally unconvincing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?